Whose War? U Decide!

[muse]

darkstar wants us to belive that this is a war against the residents of FATA, as if they were all radicals, of couse, this bit of mischief won't do. The residents of FATA have formed militias to chase dem crazy taliban and AQ out of town. There's your force of jamadars, cleaning pipes and pulling weeds from their roots.

Either way Darkstar, the time for talking is over, if Pakistan will not clean up it's own house, there are others standing by to "help".

 

[dr.umer]

Comments like "indiscriminate killing by PA" are nothing but crap. How can they explain 0.4 million refugees "ALIVE".

Such comment makers are either "ignorant" or "arrogant". There can't be a third category around.

 

[fatman17]

^^its funny how we go back and forth, back and forth blaming external forces, blaming the ISI and all previous govts for spawning the Taliban phenomenon. on hindsight this is all very easy.
the point is that there is a full blown insurgency going on in our land and it needs to be snuffed out. the military is serious this time (however late). what is now required is a mass media campaign by the present govt. with media support to fully convince the people that this is a war for our survival, our moderate way of life, the future of the children of pakistan.
one national strategy fully supported by the govt, people and the military. if we want to talk to the insurgents it can be under only one condition - surrender their arms before peace talks.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Fairly good assessment of the situation.


ANALYSIS: Understanding the insurgency

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi
October 05, 2008

The October 2 suicide attack at the residence of the ANP chief, Asfandaryar Wali Khan, was another frightening reminder of the escalating threat to Pakistani state and society. Coming less than two weeks after the Marriott bombing in Islamabad, the Charsadda attack shows that Pakistan faces something more than pure and simple terrorism, often explained, if not justified, by pro-militancy elements as a reaction to American presence in Afghanistan.

The ANP is not known as a pro-US political party, and it has always stood for an independent foreign policy with an emphasis on conflict-free relations with all neighbours. Its support for counter-terrorism is based on protection of Pakistani society, particularly Pakhtun society, from religion extremism and violence.

The latest suicide attack shows that anti-Americanism is not the sole explanation for the activities of Islamic militants. Pakistan faces an insurgency led by the Pakistani Taliban with their core base in the tribal areas. They appear well entrenched there, and their activities are now aimed more at the Pakistani state than at supporting the Afghan Taliban, as was the case in the past (though they still cooperate with each other).

The Taliban want to consolidate their territorial control in the tribal areas and extend it to as many parts of the NWFP as possible. They would like to establish a political and administrative domain that will have Islamic features similar to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan during 1996-2001. They also have an ideological agenda of making their domain available to other movements that share their “Islamic” agenda. Their approach also involves extending influence and control throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan through allied hard-line groups.

The attack on the ANP leader can be explained only in the backdrop of this ideological and territorial agenda. Unlike the MMA provincial government (2002-2007), the present ANP government in NWFP has openly challenged the efforts of Pakistani Taliban to expand their domain at the expense of the state. The Taliban asked the ANP government to resign, which the latter refused. Therefore, the Taliban view the ANP leadership as an adversary that obstructed the implementation of their agenda. Their bid to eliminate Asfandyar Wali failed, but it underlined the point that the Taliban will target individuals and entities that are blocking the realisation of their agenda.

Pakistan now faces an insurgency whose leadership wants to displace the state and government, or at least restrict its domain. If the government of Pakistan cannot neutralise these challenges through military and political means, it will become increasingly irrelevant in many parts of what is today Pakistan. This is the most serious challenge to post-1971 Pakistan: an armed and well-organised movement has entrenched itself in the tribal areas and now threatens to displace the Pakistani state from as much area as possible.

This state of affairs did not develop in a year, but gradually since 2001. The Musharraf regime and the MMA government in the NWFP allowed these elements to entrench themselves and expand their influence.

The Pakistani Taliban is a post-2001 phenomenon. After the capture of Kabul by American and Northern Alliance troops in November 2001, most of the original Taliban and Al Qaeda elements initially disappeared in mountainous regions like Tora Bora. Later, they moved into FATA and parts of Balochistan adjacent to Afghanistan. A good number of them already had links in Pakistan though the madrassa system. Their entry and stay in the area were also facilitated by shared ethnicity, religious outlook and the desire to free Afghanistan from American occupation.

The continued presence of the Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda mobilised local Pashtuns, some of whom had fought with the Afghan Taliban first against the Northern Alliance and then against the Americans. These local Pashtuns began to organise themselves under inspiration and support from the Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda, later naming themselves the Pakistan Taliban.

Three factors facilitated their growth. First, the initial target of both sets of Taliban was Afghanistan. As they did not challenge Pakistani authorities, the latter did not generally interfere with their activities unless they got involved in local feuds and disturbed the law and order situation.

Second, the Musharraf government pursued a dual policy of confronting and arresting some Al Qaeda and Taliban elements but not pushing security action against them to dislodge them completely. Local civilian and intelligence authorities had enough discretion to give some space to these elements. This helped the Musharraf government get the MMA’s backing and consolidate itself. It was only after the Red Mosque incident in July 2007 that the MMA began to distance itself from the government.

Third, local authorities under the MMA government in the NWFP did not try to stop the Taliban march from the tribal areas to adjoining settled districts because they shared their worldview. By the time the MMA government left office in 2007, the Pakistani Taliban had reached several rural and urban centres of the province. Further, the MMA opposed the federal government’s military operations in the tribal areas.

The Pakistani Taliban (backed by their Afghan counterparts and Al Qaeda) decided to challenge the Pakistani government openly in settled areas after the Red Mosque incident because they viewed it as the beginning of the government’s new policy of subduing their Pakistani allies. A series of suicide bombings hit Pakistan in 2007-2008.

The recent spurt of violence is a Taliban reaction to the present PPP-led government’s unambiguous policy of countering terrorism. The latest military action has also hit them hard in Bajaur and Swat. A significant development in the tribal belt is that non-Taliban tribesmen have started supporting military action against the Pakistani Taliban. They have been taking action against militants and protecting Pakistani forces’ supply lines. The Pakistani Taliban have increased suicide attacks in order to force the government to stop these military operations.

Pakistan faces an insurgency in the tribal belt that targets the settled areas. The aim of the insurgency appears to be to subdue Pakistan’s state and society. The on-going operations are meant to remove this challenge. The ANP and the MQM have also taken a public position against extremists and militants. Islamist parties do not support the government’s tough line and military action against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The PMLN and the PMLQ (the ruling party under Musharraf) do not support military action and express reservations on the current government’s handling of the situation.

These parties are unable to fathom the threat to Pakistan, and continue to view these developments through their anti-American lens. Some of them describe the situation as a conspiracy engineered by the US, India, Afghanistan and Jewish extremists.

Even if there is merit to such conspiracy theories they cannot be tackled by suicide bombings, burning of girls’ schools, public executions, Islamic-sectarian killings or inter-group conflict. There is a need to see the emerging challenge of insurgency in its true perspective.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst

 

[DarkStar]

Comments like "indiscriminate killing by PA" are nothing but crap. How can they explain 0.4 million refugees "ALIVE".

Such comment makers are either "ignorant" or "arrogant". There can't be a third category around.

I challenge you to show me where i said those words "indiscriminate killing by PA", so please do not force words into my mouth (or text).

The only ignorance that I see is yours in not being able to understand the point i was making. Do you even know what the word indiscriminate means? Otherwise why are you mentioning the 0.4 million figure?

The indiscriminate killing has been the US Drone attacks which sometimes target militants but mostly not, and the raid by US commandos where upto 20 civilians had been killed. An attack which the "PA" has condemned.

Now will you say that Gen Ashfaq Kyani is "ignorant and arrogant" for having condemned the indiscriminate use of force by the ISAF? Army spokesmen, and Govt officials are on record in having said that these attacks will fuel militancy. Do you know more about this, than these "ignorant and arrogant" people? Or would you call their statements crap too?

The point I was trying to make, was that if people are killed in such strikes, the blame will be laid upon the Pakistani govts door, as we will be seen as colluding with the agressors. The reaction would be faced by us, no one else.

What is so wrong with making peace with the militants that we can, so that we can isolate the real mischief makers, and take them out piece meal, like the USA has done with the Awakening Councils in iraq. If ever there was a counter insurgency model to be followed, it should be Gen. Patreus'.

And muse, as for those standing by to help, to hell with them! If they want to help, tell them to set up checkpoints on the Durand line like we have, and stop the infiltration into our Tribal Areas.

If not, then maybe we should offer our help in doing so.

I'm sure some of our jawans wouldn't mind getting a bit of shooting practice on the other side of the line.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Excellent article! Ijaz Hussain is absolutely correct in his assessment of the situation.


Analysis: Is this our war?

Ijaz Hussain
October 08, 2008

The mere ownership of the war by the government is not enough to fight it effectively. It is imperative that the people own it too

Ever since Pakistan joined the US-led war on terror in 2001, controversy has raged on whether it is our war or America’s. When Pervez Musharraf ruled the roost, his government owned it while most political parties, including his own PMLQ, refused to. Despite this divide, the debate on the ownership of the war remained low-key.

The devastating Marriott bomb blast has, among other things, revived this debate as never before. Whereas the Pakistan government has reaffirmed its ownership, opposition political parties and the public at large do not seem convinced. Given the shrill, passionate debate that has taken place on the issue in the media following the Marriott tragedy, the divide seems to have widened. Further, it has raised the question: why, if it is our war, has the government failed to sell it to the public?

There is little doubt that when we joined the war, it was not ours. The Musharraf government owned it because the Bush administration imposed it on us as testified by the reported infamous threat by Richard Armitage to bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age if we did not join the effort.

As a consequence, we abandoned the Taliban and helped the US capture Kabul. Musharraf justified the volte-face on the ground of protecting Pakistan’s vital national interests such as the nuclear assets, the Kashmir cause, etc. However, he failed to mention his own survival as president, which must have factored in this decision.

The war started becoming ours too when Al Qaeda and Taliban escapees from the American bombing started pouring into our tribal areas. With the passage of time they consolidated their positions and as the resistance against foreign forces in Afghanistan picked up, they, along with the Pakistani Taliban, started using these sanctuaries for operations across the Durand Line.

To stop them from doing so, the Musharraf government introduced Pakistani troops in the tribal areas. It did so because in addition to American pressure, international law (chapter on international state responsibility) obligated it to stop elements from using its territory against Afghanistan. Besides, the UNSC resolution on terrorism also required it to fight against them, failing which sanctions could be imposed. It is undeniable that the Pakistani tribals feel free to mount military operations across the border as they do not recognise the Durand Line. However, international law takes no cognisance of this argument.

The war also became ours when the terrorists decided to cause mayhem not only in the tribal areas but also across the length and breadth of Pakistan. They are doing so with the objective of pressurising the government to abandon support for the Bush administration in its war on terror and letting them use Pakistani territory for military operations in Afghanistan. The terrorists also seek to incrementally take over the whole or part of the state of Pakistan and run it according to their ideology. One has sporadic glimpses of this strategy in areas where the Pakistan government has lost its writ in favour of the Taliban.

This is also our war in another sense. The Taliban ideology at present being practiced in parts of Pakistan is nothing but evil incarnate. Even its milder version, practiced when they were in power in Kabul during 1996-2001, was no less evil because it struck at the roots of the progressive and moderate worldview of Islam that we cherish.

If tomorrow the Taliban succeed in militarily chasing foreign forces out of Afghanistan and establish their own government there, they would pose a threat to Pakistan’s polity. Those who reject it as an alarmist view and believe that the Taliban government in Afghanistan would be as benign towards Pakistan as the one that flourished there during the late 1990s are sadly mistaken. Flushed with victory in Afghanistan, this time the Taliban may not rest until they overpower nuclear Pakistan.

Had Musharraf not committed the ‘original sin’ of joining the Bush’s war on terror, could we have been spared the agony of owning it? Our answer is in the negative because even if Pakistan had refused to join it, the terrorists would have forced it on us.

This is so because they would have mounted operations against foreign forces across the Durand Line, which we would not have been able to stop. That in turn would have invited American attacks on the Pakistani territory, as is the case at the moment.

If it is our war as shown above, why has the Pakistani government failed to sell it to the people? There are four main reasons.

First, as is well known, it has failed because of the American dimension of the issue. The US is highly unpopular in the Muslim world for a host of reasons, which includes not only its occupation of two Muslim lands but also the blind support that it extends to Israel against the Palestinians. Besides, the way the Bush Administration has conducted the so-called war on terror has given rise to a common perception in the Muslim world that the US is waging a crusade against Islam instead of fighting terrorism.

Resultantly, Muslims generally hate the US, which in turn has made them lose sight of the fact that American and the Muslim interests could coincide as is the case at present, though the two differ, inter alia, on the methodology to deal with it.

Second, the government has failed to market this war because of the gullibility of our people. The latter are generally so driven by religion they can be easily duped by any clever operator. Taking advantage of this weakness, the Pakistani clerics who have their own axe to grind have taken a line that encourages sympathy rather than revulsion against Taliban.

For example, they believe that the Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan during 1996-2001 was the closest ever to the Khulfa-e-Rashidin. Similarly, though they denounce suicide bombings as un-Islamic, they consistently refuse to support the government against the Taliban unless it disassociates itself from the US and/or enforces sharia in the country.

Third, there is constant propaganda that the government is guilty of genocide against its own people. This argument has lot of appeal for the common man though it is utterly fallacious because if the terrorists are bent upon forcing their views upon the people through suicide bombings and other acts of violence, should the government treat them with kid glove methods simply because they are our own people?

Fortunately, Asfandyar Wali Khan, who until recently was one of the principal protagonists of this viewpoint (which he often combined with the lethal plea that military operations in FATA and Swat were a conspiracy against Pukhtuns), has abandoned it with the ascent to power of his ANP. However, notwithstanding this development, the argument continues to have wide appeal, which stops people from owning this war.

Fourth, the government lacks credibility. For example, many believe that suicide bombings and other acts of violence are the handiwork of secret agencies, and that the Taliban living in caves are incapable of mounting sophisticated operations like the Marriott bombing. A variant of this line is the plea by Islamist parties that these atrocious acts are perpetrated by foreign agencies like RAW and Mossad, and that no Muslim can ever imagine to kill another Muslim. Though both arguments are nothing but rubbish, many people believe them. The Taliban are the net beneficiaries of this situation.

It is clear that the mere ownership of the war by the government is not enough to fight it effectively. It is imperative that the people own it too. This can only come about if the government conducts a systematic analysis of the factors that make the people shun the war, and then makes concerted efforts to shape public opinion to its viewpoint. It seems to have done neither. Unless it is prepared to undertake this gargantuan task, it may not win this war.

The writer is a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University. He can be reached at hussain_ijaz@hotmail.com

 

[MizzJi]

hmmm can someone summarize all that??!!

 

[RabzonKhan]

My hats off to Mr. Afridi he is a true patriot and a courageous man.



Lawyers divided on ‘war on terror’ policy

October 10, 2008. PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court Bar Association (PHCBA) on Thursday got divided over ‘war on terror’ policy of the government with some lawyer leaders calling it Pakistan’s own war while others terming it US war imposed on the country.

The PHCBA general body meeting called to discuss judges’ restoration turned into a law and order situation meeting when lawyer leaders from different political parties got divided over ‘war on terror’ policy of the government.

Lawyer leaders from Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) called the ongoing war against militants in the country a part of the US war on terror and warned that the country’s integrity would be at stake if the government did not change its war on terror policy.

The Awami National Party (ANP) lawyers, on the other hand, opposed them and called the ongoing war against militants Pakistan’s own war.

Expressing his views, ANP leader and PHCBA president Abdul Lateef Afridi rejected the opinion that the ongoing war in Pakistan against militants was US war.

“It’s Pakistan’s own war and the government could never surrender before militants,” Afridi said. The ANP lawyer leader supported party chief Asfandyar Wali Khan’s policy statement against Taliban and terrorists, saying his party would not change its stand against terrorism and extremism and will fight against them till the last moment.

“It is not US but militants who carried out Wali Bagh (Charsadda), Zangali check-post (Peshawar) and Marriott Hotel (Islamabad) suicide attacks that killed hundreds of innocent Pakistanis. Hundreds of schools and houses were bombed in Swat and about 75,000 girls were deprived of education,” Afridi said. akhtar amin

 

[Neo]

We must back Army against terrorists!​

Editorial: A joint session of parliament in Islamabad has heard, in camera, the newly-appointed ISI Director General Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha — who was Director General Military Operations (DGMO) before he got the job — on the terrorist threat facing Pakistan and the army’s operations to thwart the terrorists. The briefing has made it clear that to succeed against the militancy in the Tribal Areas the army would need full political backing from the parliament and the people of Pakistan.

The briefing was graphic. There were slides, charts and films which could have left no doubt in anybody’s mind what Pakistan was up against. One can surmise that beheadings, torture and forcible induction of teenagers into suicide-bombing were noted and explained. The operations in Bajaur and Swat were explained too, according to the statements made by the parliamentarians after the briefing. In Bajaur, a level of success has been achieved, with the local population supporting the army; in Swat, things are still difficult because of the control exercised over territory by the militants.

Pakistan has lost 1,368 troops in the fight since 2001, and the military has killed 2,825 Taliban and terrorists, including 581 foreigners. One report about the session says the joint house listened to the shocking details in silence. There will be sessions following the briefing in which the representatives of the people will ask questions and give their views on the subject. The joint session is expected to last a week, if not more, given the gravity of the subject and the urgency of national support to the military operations.

Although the opposition politicians have been negative in their initial remarks, we hope that they will set aside their partisan positions and agree on the task of clearing out the terrorists from Pakistani territory. There are foreigners among the local militants and there are foreign powers involved in trying to harm Pakistan. Weapons and explosives are flowing into the Tribal Areas — and the rest of the country — and dead militants have been found carrying Afghan currency and American dollars. There is no force in Pakistan other than the army that can save us from this invasion.

The message from the army is that it needs public support as it goes in to fight the intruders. This means that it will need parliament to endorse its operations, but it also means restraint in public utterances that undermine the morale of the troops willing to lay down their lives for the country. In fact this aspect of the war against terrorism is most important of all. If statements opposed to military operations are publicised and discussions on TV are held to denigrate the policy of military response, it is bound to make our soldiers wonder if they are fighting the right war.

The crux of the problem is expressed in the slogan popularised by some elements in the media: “this is not Pakistan’s war”. Most critics want to ignore the situation on the ground and judge it on the basis of some strategic decision made by General Musharraf in 2001 after the 9/11 incidents. They think it is America’s war and Pakistan should stop fighting it because it is tantamount to going to war against Pakistan’s own people. This stance requires a stubborn and irrational denial of much of what has been shown to the parliamentarians in the in camera session.

Unfortunately, this militates against the use of the army in any national cause. Why should the army fight a war which is not Pakistan’s war? Also, by what yardstick should the army say that it is the war to fight if those who formulate policy and agree on its general direction are not united in their judgement? At the most, it can report on the consequences of the earlier policies followed by the government in power. As the joint session proceeds, the consequences of the policy of seeking dialogue with the militants and negotiating terms of peace with them will be described by the army.

Statements made by the opposition foreshadow a rejection of the in-camera briefing. But we hope that there will be “objections” that can be met and not an outright “rejection”. As far as the majority in the joint session is concerned, the ruling coalition will be able to secure it once again. One good sign is that even those who oppose military operations predict that the parliament will decide in favour of fighting this war because it is Pakistan’s war now and not only America’s. Pakistan is in bad economic shape and needs to avoid international isolation. And the army will need more than just a majority vote. It will need a “national consensus” and a complete backing from the free media.

Incidentally, top elements of the media have already received three excellent briefings from Gen Pasha in the last six months. It is time to put reason and national interest above tribal notions of personal honour and pique.

 

[BATMAN]

I found discussion below very much adressing the prevailing situation and its background.
I only differentiate to the point that by any hypothesis, Pakistan can ever afford a loosing US co-operation and so does US .
If co-operation is lost both have lot more to lose than any one of them can imagine.

INTERVIEW

 

[muse]

For those who have not understood the "exponential" rise in the kind of challenges Pakistan is face with, please read, not with injury, but new eyes:



A long, hot winter for Pakistan
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

The Taliban are escalating the conflict in Pakistan's cities, aiming to strike before the US and its partners can dig in for the all-out war that all quarters - the Western ruling establishments, Afghan government, Pakistani ruling military and political establishment and the two US presidential candidates - tacitly agree must be waged against the Taliban and al-Qaeda inside Pakistan.

The Taliban's pre-emptive strategy continued on Thursday when a bomb - disguised as a delivery of sweets - destroyed the headquarters of Pakistan's Anti-Terrorist Force in Islamabad. The blast occurred during a special session of parliament at which the director of the Inter-Services Intelligence, Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, was briefing lawmakers on Pakistan's strategy in the "war on terror".

The package of sweets was allegedly sent by Waliur Rehman, a commander of Jaish-i-Islami Pakistan, a militant outfit which is attached to the umbrella organization Pakistan Tehrik-i-Taliban led by Baitullah Mehsud. Waliur Rahman works out of Pakistan's Bajaur agency - a tribal area situated near the border with the Afghan provinces of Kunar and Nooristan. The Pakistan Army is presently conducting a powerful military operation in Bajaur.

A letter recovered from gift basket read, "If Pakistan does not separate itself from the American crusade on Muslims, these sort of attacks shall continue."

According to reports, a vehicle with two occupants entered the Anti-Terrorist headquarters and asked guards to to deliver the package of candies to a top policeman's office. Interestingly, the police official had already given instructions for an employee to carrying the sweets inside for him. Within minutes, the bomb exploded.

Apart from a few guards, nobody was in the office. Some guards were injured, but the whole Anti-Terrorist Force building, where many jihadis have been detained and interrogated, was reduced to rubble.

The bombing comes just as Pakistan has decided to expand its partnership with the US in the "war on terror". Army officials were in the process of bringing parliamentarians on board before the country enters into a major battle against the militants. Similar letters have been sent to members of parliament, warning that if the policy of supporting US forces in the region is not abandoned, the entire country will face dire consequences.

Additionally, shopkeepers in the cultural capital of the country, Lahore, received letters, widely distributed in the markets under an organized campaign, instructing them to abide by Islamic norms and remove all "vulgar" movies from their shelves.

Last week, in a special briefing session of a Senate committee, Pakistani Secretary of Defense Kamran Rasool briefed lawmakers on the recent dynamics of Pakistani support for the "war on terror". Rasool openly admitted that Pakistan does not have any option but to follow US dictates, whatever they may be, because the country would collapse within three days if US financial assistance was withdrawn. His statement was widely criticized by the media and opposition parties.

Despite sparring over Pakistan in their second televised debate on Tuesday night, the two US presidential candidates ended up saying the same thing, though in somewhat different ways. While Democrat hopeful Senator Barack Obama said the US should only take action inside Pakistan if the government there was unable, or unwilling, to do so, Republican Senator John McCain was more conciliatory, recommending that the US use soft language with Pakistan, but carry a big stick.

This presidential posturing suggests that the focus of war in South Asia will eventually shift to Pakistan from Afghanistan and that before launching any final strategy, Pakistan's leaders must make adequate arrangements.

The main American asset in the North-West Frontier Province is Asfanyar Wali Khan, the leader of the Awami National Party which governs the province. Asfanyar has made Islamabad his home after a failed suicide attack on his life last week in his town. He is not the only one taking security precautions. Official premises in the present "Red Zone" - the president's quarters, prime minister's house, parliament, supreme court and the diplomatic enclave - are to be secured in a highly protected "Green City". This new complex will reportedly be separated from the rest of Islamabad by an enormous wall.

All this is in preparation for Pakistan's emergence as the main theater of the "war on terror". This comes as the long winter begins and war goes cold in neighboring Afghanistan.

The war in Pakistan

The recent thread of events seems to start from a huge training program which the US has called an essential component in fighting the militancy in Pakistan. US Admiral Mike Mullen told the Los Angeles Times that American forces have secured bases north of Islamabad to train Pakistani soldiers. However, sources have told Asia Times Online that the situation on the ground reveals much more than a training program.

Hasanpur, a small town situated along the Ghazi Brotha Canal six kilometers from Tarbella Ghazi, is the center of activity. Sources in Pakistani security agencies told Asia Times Online that the airstrip in Hasanpur has been upgraded to war readiness in the last few weeks and new hangars have been built for military aircraft. Underground shelters, bunkers and tunnels have also been constructed. Following the arrival of American "training advisory groups", British military personnel were flown in and have reportedly taken over management of the facility.

Sources claim that the logistical capabilities of the US and British personnel, and extraordinary measures they have taken to upgrade the airstrip, suggest something far more advanced than a simple training site.

The security sources also maintain that new installations in the Hasanpur mountains are geared for direct participation in military operations. At the least, they are said to be capable of conducting independent drone operations from the high-altitude Hasanpur area.

As earlier reported, (See The gloves are off in Pakistan, Asia Times Online, September 23, 2008), US preparations are also underway at Tarbella, the brigade headquarters of Pakistan's Special Operation Task Force approximately 20km from Islamabad. In September, 300 American officials landed at this facility, with the official designation as a "training advisory group", according to documents viewed by Asia Times Online.

The report was widely reproduced in the Pakistani press and discussed in parliamentary committees. The main concern of the parliamentarians was that US activity so close to a Pakistani nuclear facility could jeopardize Pakistan's nuclear assets.

Supposedly, the frenzied US military preparations have an aspect of "October Surprise" - a longstanding term for unexpected twists that can help or hinder candidates in the month before US presidential elections.

For example, there is now an increased focus on attacks in areas where al-Qaeda leaders could potentially be spotted, arrested or killed. Rather than destroying Taliban sanctuaries or attacking the Pakistan Tehrik-i-Taliban center in South Waziristan, all focus has been on Bajaur - where a huge battle continues, causing the displacement of 500,000 residents.

Although the Pakistani military has failed to control the ground in Bajaur, preparations are now being made to assault North Waziristan, where most high-profile al-Qaeda leaders are believed to have shifted. Any al-Qaeda "successes" by US or Western forces would likely be used to the advantage of Republican candidate McCain.

The battle for 'October Surprise'

Lieutenant General Pasha told the recent session of parliament that Bajuar agency has been cleared of all militants and that state policy on the area will be established in coming weeks. Sources in the security agencies, however, maintain that so far Pakistan has only used fighter aircraft to bomb the militants. The army, according to sources, was not deployed on the ground because it is not prepared to take casualties. Until the army gains control of the ground, military operations in Bajaur will remain in limbo.

But the Pakistan Army is convinced, without any substantial proof, that it has displaced al-Qaeda leaders from Bajaur and that they have fled to North Waziristan.

Now, with American elections scheduled next month, the Pakistan Army will go to North Waziristan for the battle of "October Surprise". Fresh contingents of the army have been mobilized and action appears to be expected next week.

Sources said that the main target of the operation is Dr Ayman Al-Zawahiri. However, NATO allegedly favors the operation in North Waziristan because, like Bajaur, it is a nest of Afghan resistance, mainly of pro-Pakistan Jalaluddin Haqqani, a legendary Afghan mujahideen leader who has run the most effective militant network against NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Militants' winter offensive

Militants have their eyes set on November when they aim to spin the web of world events according to their will. Sources privy to their plans refused to reveal the details of global operations, but categorically refer to an extremely hot winter for Pakistan. Asia Times Online has learned on good authority that militants have planned attacks which would exceed this January's suicide attacks - which outnumbered those in war-torn Iraq.

As a source involved in the upcoming winter offensive told Asia Times Online: "Let October pass, then comes the mujahadeen's turn and then these mercenaries who bow down either for money or American might [will] have to decide whether we are more powerful or their American masters, and hence would have to decide whether they are with the American crusade in the name of war on terror, or with the global Muslim resistance against Western occupation forces."

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

 

[RabzonKhan]

Mr Sharif out of sync?

Sunday, October 12, 2008
Dr Farrukh Saleem

The whole world wants to rid us all from the menace of terrorism. Muslim-majority states of the OIC, including Turkey, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the UAE., Albania and Azerbaijan, all have troops in Afghanistan. A total of 43 countries -- including Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Austria, Croatia, Finland, Georgia, Macedonia, Ireland, Serbia, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Romania and South Korea--are all fighting terrorism right next door to us.

On September 20, death worshippers blasted the Marriott while my office colleague, my son's classmates and my friends were breaking their fasts inside. Ten days later, in an Eid day message, Shahbaz Sharif said that the "government should shun someone else's war." Shahbaz Sharif is clearly out of sync. Pakistani Muslims walking around the streets of Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi surely aren't scared of American fighter bombers -- they are scared to death of suicide bombers.

On February 25, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif said: "there was no reason not to engage in a dialogue with those involved in terrorist activities (http://thenews.com.pk/arc_default.asp)." Look what happened the following day: on February 26, Surgeon General of Pakistan Army Lieutenant-General Hafiz Muhammad Mushtag Baig was killed by a suicide bomber in the high-security cantonment area of Rawalpindi. Mr Sharif is clearly out of sync.

Pakistan is at war for its soul. The world is at war with a particular world view; a world view that insists that the existing world order is unfair and is adamant on imposing its own world order--and that too through violence. Everyone has the right to argue whether the current world order is fair or not but no one has the right to impose his or her own world view and that too through the use of violence.

Over the past few years, a total of 11,504 innocent Muslim Pakistanis have been blown to bits by terrorists. In 2002, there were two suicide attacks. In 2007, there were 56 and 2008 has already seen 37 suicide attacks. In 2003, there were 41 bombs blasts. In 2008, there have already been 700 bomb blasts. Muslims are ruthlessly killing Muslims and Nawaz Sharif is adamant on having a 'dialogue' with the killers of humanity. Someone is definitely out of sync.

Our existence as a nation-state is at stake. Our existence as normal human beings is at stake. Doesn't Nawaz Sharif understand the gravity of the situation? Doesn't he realize that some 10,000 square kilometres of Pakistani territory -- between Tochi and Gomal rivers -- has been captured? This isn't terrorism any more; it's an insurgency. Shouldn't Nawaz Sharif be leading; leading his voters to win the war that Pakistan cannot afford to loose?

On October 6, a suicide bomber attacked MNA Rasheed Akbar Nawani's residence killing 20. MNA Nawani, who ended up at the Sheikh Zayed Hospital, is from Mr Sharif's own party. On October 7, juice shops and a beauty parlour in Garhi Shahu were bombed; Mr Sharif's home city was rocked. Pakistan is under an existentialist threat and the Sharifs are out of sync.

On August 22, The News editorialized: "This is a fight very much to the death -- for our very way of life, to protect and preserve it from people whose 'qualities' include intolerance, bigotry, hatred and downright bestiality. The sooner this is realized -- by all Pakistanis, by the state and its various institutions and by the present government -- the better." For how long would the Sharifs continue to remain out of sync?

The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance columnist. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com

 

[niaz]

For simplicity let me put the question that we need to answer.

Will Taliban take over Pakistan?

It is true that in an election Islamists will never win in Pakistan. Abdul Wahab never won an election either. It would appear that many tribal leaders were opposed to his brand of Islam in Nejd and were quite happy to live under the Hanafi Turkish Kahlifas; Wahabis took over the Nejd and later the entire region with the help of force of arms of the supporters of the house of Saud. Any one who opposed were killed off or fled. Hashmis and their supporters were in large numbers in Hijaz that is why Sharif Hussain was picked by the English to lead the rebellion against the Turks. Where are those now? Majority of these were either killed or ran way to Jordan/Iraq. The same will happen in Pakistan. Aim of the Sepah Sehaba and Lashkar Jhangvi as openly declared by them during the last Nawaz Sharif government, was to declare Pakistan an orthodox Sunni State. We saw an example of this by the methods employed by Lal Masjid thugs in Islamabad. Islamists in Pakistan have already taken over parts of Pakistan by force of arms. Looking at the rise in Taliban power during last 5 years; the answer is yes, they will takeover Pakistan unless some thing is done about it now.

Did the terror attacks start with 9/11?

It is incorrect to state that attacks by Islamic terrorists started with the 9/11. Iranian revolution started the Shia –Sunni schism. TNFJ was created in Bhakkar in 1979 with Iranian help ostensibly to resist Zia’s imposition of Sunni Zakat Laws on Shias. CIA, anti Iran Arab States and ISI pooled their efforts to curb Iranian influence and thus funded and aided the creation of SSP by Haq Nawaz Jhangvi in 1985. We saw a spate of tit for tat killings.

Leader of community, religious scholars and Shia doctors and notables were targeted. Both the Shia and Sunni extremists are equally guilty. However Shias being in the minority came out worst. One of the reasons was that nearly 10,000 Pakistani young men received military training under the garb of jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Nearly all of these were of Deobandi maslak and anti Shia. These were initially under different organizations. All of these have now combined to form Tahreek Taliban Pakistan Mariam Abou Zahab has written a very good dissertation on the rise of sectarianism. this is available on the internet under “The regional dimensions of sectarian conflict in Pakistan" for those wishing to read it.

In addition to SSP, TNSM was formed by Sufi Mohammed in Malakand in 1992. Another militant Wahabi organization which openly preaches imposition of Wahabi doctrine by force of arms. The same people are causing mayhem in Swat. Afghan jihad also saw a mushrooming of the madrassahs. Most of these taught a very narrow view of Islam. Another factor seen during the bigot Zia’s 11 year rule was rise of JI . JI would never win more than one or two seat in Pakistan in a free election. However as they supported Zia, its cadres received indirect state support. Currently a lot of Urdu media grandees have had links with JI. Irshad Haqqani and Irfan Siddiqui are just two of many.

It can therefore be successfully argued that religious extremism has been in Pakistan at least since 1979 or 22 years before 9/11. 2001. Taliban, when in power in Afghanistan, were providing safe heaven to Islamic terrorists. Gen Moin Haider as Home Minister visited Afghanistan but Mullah Omer sent him back empty handed. Only difference is that previously most of the attacks were thru bombings or spraying of bullets or target killing, suicide bombings started after 9/11.


Is this a US war and will it stop if GOP pulls the army out of FATA?

Pakistan’s polity became polarized after Mushharf’s U-Turn. This provided an opportunity to Islamists who could now claim that they were fighting the great Satan, the US. This action by Mushy thus enabled the supporters of Taliban to confuse the issue. I repeat my assertion, that it is not US’s war any more. Pakistan has lost nearly 10,000 Sq Kilometers of the area to Baitullah Mahsood’s Tehreek Taliban in FATA, how much more we need to lose before we realize that it is our war?.

Policy of the appeasement has been tried. Each truce only gave respite to Taliban and they came back stronger. Media has been guilty of supporting anti state elements by providing them free TV time and confusing the issue by somehow trying to find a US connection such as happened after Marriott bombing. Pray tell me where is the US connection in suicide attack in Bhakkar or on Isfandyar Wali Khan or at the Jirga in Mohmand Agency?

To all those who still support Taliban and believe that there will be no more suicide attacks if PA Army pulls out. I respectfully stress that aim of the Taliban movement to create an orthodox Wahabi state in Pakistan where only Deobandi maslak will be allowed. You are being naïve if you believe that it is US’s war. It may have been in the beginning but not any more, it is the war of Pakistan’s survival. Silent majority will quietly acquiesce to Taliban. If you really want this to happen than you have no love for Pakistan.

Finally the US attacks on Pakistan.

This is without doubt an insult to Pakistan and we should try our best to have these stopped because these hurt Pakistan more than the Taliban. At this juncture in time, Pakistan is faced with 3 major challenges.

1. Anti state forces and their sympathizers. These are Taliban, BLA and other separatists.

2. Economic melt down which is threatening to turn Pakistan into a bankrupt state.

3. US, India and others who couldn’t care less about Pakistan and are only worried if the militants take over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

Pakistan cannot tackle all at once. So we need to tackle the first two and leave US & India to the last. Therefore I believe that army operation must continue until all anti sate elements; regardless whether Pakistani or foreign; are cleared of our holy motherland.

 

[muse]

The Time has come for the politicians of Pakistan - now you must decide, Pakistan or talibistan - you must decide who is for Pakistan and who is not. It is time for you to decide whether you will see through the strategy of shifting the blame for islamist terrorism to Musharraf and a host of others or will you decide that there will be a free Pakistan where extremist ideas and the supporters of extremism will find no comfort.



Opposition MPs flex muscle for frank debate: Joint session resumes today

By Raja Asghar

ISLAMABAD, Oct 12: After two days of listening to the military that many said informed them little, it will be the turn of parliament members to speak out on the so-called “war on terrorism” in a secret debate in search of a consensus beginning on Monday in a joint sitting of the two houses.

But very little will be known to the general public about the likely heated proceedings, which will be reported only by a press release of the National Assembly secretariat.

Commencing at 5pm as a follow-up of the military’s in-camera briefing to the joint sitting of the National Assembly and the Senate on Wednesday and Thursday after a three-day recess, the debate could last three to four days, parliamentary sources of the government said on Sunday.

It will be “like a full-fledged debate” aimed to develop “some consensus” about the future policy, leader of the house in the Senate Raza Rabbani told Dawn.

He said no time-limit had been set for the debate, but only the third secret joint sitting of the two houses in Pakistan’s parliamentary history could continue for three to four more days.

After the military’s briefing for two days, most opposition spokesmen said they hardly got any new information about what has turned into a full-scale insurgency in the mountains and valleys in the north of the country by the followers of the Al-Qaeda and Taliban, who have also struck major cities and towns across the country quite often with deadly suicide bombings.

After complaining of dissatisfaction with the briefing, some opposition parties as well as some allies are likely to come quite hard on the six-month-old PPP-led coalition government they accuse of only continuing former military president Pervez Musharraf’s policy that they say has failed.

The government says it has already moved from Musharraf’s only use-of-force to a three-pronged approach of dialogue with those who give up arms, economic development of the troubled Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata), and a selective use of force against those who insist on challenging writ of the state.

Questions could be raised about the responsibility for the fast spread of militant activity to almost all the seven Fata administrative agencies bordering Afghanistan and some adjoining settled districts like Swat despite a heavy military deployment in the region.

It appeared to be in anticipation of a discussion in parliament on the conduct of the security agencies that the military leadership voiced its anger on Saturday about criticism directed against the country’s top spy agency, the Inter-Services Intellgence (ISI).

But Mr Rabbani said the military statement that said a Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee meeting on Saturday “took a serious note of insinuations about Pakistan’s nuclear programme and the ISI” responded only to some external criticism some time ago that was earlier rejected by Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and the foreign ministry.

Parliamentary groups seemed to be flexing their muscles for the debate, in which the Pakistan Muslim League-N is likely to lead the opposition assault despite its vow to help the coalition government complete its five-year term despite parting ways with it recently after the PPP leadership failed to honour its commitment to reinstate all superior court judges sacked by General Musharaf under a controversial Nov 3, 2007 emergency proclamation.

PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif, while marking the ninth anniversary of his deposition as prime minister by General Musharraf, said in Lahore on Sunday his party would seek peace through dialogue and that he wanted the former army chief to be summoned to appear before parliament to answer questions.

Maulana Fazlur Rehman, whose Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam faction has been a supporter of the Taliban and is now a partner in the coalition government, wants the issue to be seen in the context of perceived American policies to dominate this region.

“If allowed by the Speaker, perhaps my speech will be the real briefing,” he told a news conference.

But the government is expected to get full support from coalition ally Awami National Party, whose leader Asfandyar Wali Khan survived a recent suicide bombing at his Wali Bagh home in the North West Frontier Province where his party heads the ruling coalition.

Similar support is also likely from the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, which is a PPP ally in Sindh province and is waiting in the wings to join the federal cabinet as well and a section of the opposition Pakistan Muslim League-Q.

“We will try and develop a minimum consensus to effectively move forward to combat (terrorism),” Mr Rabbani said.

“It is not (continuation of) the Musharraf policy,” he said and added that the joint sitting debate was in line with commitments of the Charter of Democracy signed by assassinated PPP leader Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in 2006 to make parliament relevant in running the affairs of the country and develop consensus on all major issue confronting the nation.

According to him, it was a demonstration of the supremacy of parliament that army was brought in to give a briefing to a joint session for the first time.

He said an in-camera debate was preferred only to “avoid petty point-scoring at a critical time in the country’s history” and rather try to build a consensus.

 

[muse]

As a demonstration of how ridiculous is the understanding of morality, of etghics, of soverignty and "equality" among the politicians of Pakistan, please review the editorial below -- When Right and Wrong, When Good and Bad, when the law and the Law breaker are determined as EQUAL, what then is morality or ethics, or sovereignty? Wht next? The Indian and the American will make presentations as to why they must be allowed to conduct operations against Pakistan? But, Why not? Why are they any less EQUAL???



From Today's Daily Times



Editorial: Inviting terrorists into parliament?

The JUIf chief and one of the leaders of the ruling coalition, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, has demanded that the people who are called terrorists by the government should be allowed to present their point of view in parliament during the in-camera session. This means that he wants the Pakistan Army to be put at par with the people it is fighting in the Tribal Areas. Is this his idea of “justice”? When it comes to choosing, will he support the terrorists and spurn the army? The last JUI-led MMA government in Peshawar did exactly that for five years until it was dissolved on the eve of the 2008 elections and later routed in the elections by the people for such policies.

More significantly, the PMLN leader Mr Nawaz Sharif has declared that he would support the proposal that “shiddat-pasand” (extremists) be “included” in the political process. As if parliament is not sovereign at the present time, he demanded that it “be empowered to end terrorism”.

Clearly, neither the opposition nor the clerical side of the coalition is happy with the traditional definition of parliament and wish to reform it in the light of the spreading terrorist disorder in the country. Opposition parliamentarians and the media are in unison when they demand that parliament act differently from the past and somehow produce a single agreed point of view. Normally parliaments don’t operate like that. There is always disagreement among them and the government, if it has a majority vote, is allowed to pursue policies it thinks fit. If there is no “national consensus” on something and parliament wants to know where it stands, it has rules under which such issues can be discussed inside the house. If the government agrees with the opposition, which otherwise cannot force discussion of an issue because of lack of votes, discussion can take place.

How can the terrorists be invited to parliament? Under law the government is obliged to put such elements through the due process of law. We understand that Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s party has important representation in the Tribal Areas and the representatives are present in the parliament with full rights to speak for the people of the agencies they come from. But if the Maulana is harkening to the call given by the Taliban of the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TPP) that they too be given an in-camera hearing, it simply can’t be done. The TTP has admitted to killings that must first be prosecuted and their point of view can be heard out only during the trial as is the case with all those who break the law of the land. A court and not parliament is the proper forum to hear the views of alleged criminals and terrorists.

How can the “shiddat-pasand” elements be brought into the political process? The question presumes that there is a legal order in the country and there are people standing outside it who have to be brought in. In the context of the Tribal Areas, one can imagine that the “process” can be initiated through talks and negotiations. The next question is what should be the modality of this process? And should the two sides of these talks be considered equal? Should the government of Pakistan be made to behave as if it was at par with the “shiddat-pasand”? One must consider that if the state is allowed to become equal to those who are running a state within the state, the sovereignty of Pakistan will be damaged.

After the in-camera briefing in the parliament, our MNAs and Senators will no doubt discuss the situation in the Tribal Areas; but the final decision on how to proceed against terrorism will be taken by the National Assembly. And the decision will have to be made on the basis of the majority opinion. We know that the opposition will continue to fulminate, and will seek to lean on the media to convey their depressing message to the people at large, who will then force even a properly derived policy to become unpopular. This will be tantamount to bypassing parliament to make the terrorists win an argument where they don’t have any legal locus standi. *